ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

On eigenfunctions and maximal cliques of generalised Paley graphs of square order

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

on-eigenfunctions-and-maximal-cliques-of-generalised-paley-graphs-ofGroup Theorymath.COmath.GRposed by Sergey Goryainov, Leonid Shalaginov, Chi Hoi Yiprecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Assume that p(m1)p \nmid (m-1) and 2mq+132 \le m \le \frac{q+1}{3}. Then the cliques from Proposition 4.6 and Proposition 4.7 are maximal.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "On eigenfunctions and maximal cliques of generalised Paley graphs of square order", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: Let q=prq=p^r be odd, let m(q+1)m\mid(q+1), 2m(q+1)/32\le m\le (q+1)/3, and let GP(q2,m)\mathrm{GP}(q^2,m) be the Cayley graph on Fq2\mathbb F_{q^2} whose connection set is the set of nonzero mm-th powers. Choose αFq2Fq\alpha\in\mathbb F_{q^2}\setminus\mathbb F_q with αq=α\alpha^q=-\alpha. Conjecture 4.9 asserts: if p(m1)p\nmid(m-1), then the cliques constructed in Proposition 4.6, namely

    N(α){α}orN(α){α,α},N(\alpha)\cup\{\alpha\}\quad\text{or}\quad N(\alpha)\cup\{\alpha,-\alpha\},

    according as m(q+1)/2m\nmid (q+1)/2 or m(q+1)/2m\mid (q+1)/2, and the corresponding Proposition 4.7 cliques on αFq\alpha\mathbb F_q, are maximal. Here

    N(u)={xFq:ux is an m-th power in Fq2}.N(u)=\{x\in\mathbb F_q: u-x \text{ is an }m\text{-th power in }\mathbb F_{q^2}\}.

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Let w=(q+1)/mw=(q+1)/m. Since p(q+1)p\nmid(q+1), pwp\nmid w, and since p(m1)p\nmid(m-1),

    w≢1(modp),w\not\equiv 1\pmod p,

    so (w2)0\binom w2\ne0 in Fq2\mathbb F_{q^2}.

    Let

    Q={zFq2:zq+1=1},Q0={zQ:zw=1}.Q=\{z\in\mathbb F_{q^2}^*:z^{q+1}=1\},\qquad Q_0=\{z\in Q:z^w=1\}.

    The map

    θ(z)=αz+1z1\theta(z)=\alpha\frac{z+1}{z-1}

    bijectionally sends Q{1}Q\setminus\{1\} to Fq\mathbb F_q, and

    N(α)=θ(Q0{1}).N(\alpha)=\theta(Q_0\setminus\{1\}).

    Key lemma. If an affine map xtx+(1t)ax\mapsto tx+(1-t)a, with tFqt\in\mathbb F_q^*, aFqa\in\mathbb F_q, stabilizes N(α)N(\alpha), then either it is the identity, or it is xxx\mapsto -x.

    Indeed, the induced Möbius map on Q0Q_0 is

    zAz+BCz+D,z\mapsto \frac{Az+B}{Cz+D},

    where, with s=(1t)a/αs=(1-t)a/\alpha,

    A=t+s+1,B=ts1,C=t+s1,D=ts+1.A=t+s+1,\quad B=t-s-1,\quad C=t+s-1,\quad D=t-s+1.

    Since it stabilizes Q0Q_0, the polynomial

    (Az+B)w(Cz+D)w(Az+B)^w-(Cz+D)^w

    vanishes on all ww-th roots of unity, hence is a multiple of zw1z^w-1. Therefore the coefficients of zz and z2z^2 vanish:

    ABw1=CDw1,A2Bw2=C2Dw2.AB^{w-1}=CD^{w-1},\qquad A^2B^{w-2}=C^2D^{w-2}.

    If none of A,B,C,DA,B,C,D is zero, division gives A/B=C/DA/B=C/D, hence AD=BCAD=BC, but directly

    ADBC=4t0,AD-BC=4t\ne0,

    a contradiction. The zero cases force either t=1t=1, giving the identity, or t=1t=-1 and a=0a=0, giving xxx\mapsto -x.

    Now suppose the Proposition 4.6 clique CC is not maximal. Any extra vertex vCv\notin C adjacent to all of CC must lie outside Fq\mathbb F_q, and since N(v)=N(α)|N(v)|=|N(\alpha)|, one has N(v)=N(α)N(v)=N(\alpha). By Proposition 5.1 of Goryainov–Shalaginov–Yip, under the present hypotheses this implies that for some aFqa\in\mathbb F_q and tFqt\in\mathbb F_q^*,

    αa=t(va),\alpha-a=t(v-a),

    and the affine map xtx+(1t)ax\mapsto tx+(1-t)a stabilizes N(α)N(\alpha). By the lemma, the only nontrivial possibility is t=1,a=0t=-1,a=0, hence v=αv=-\alpha.

    If m(q+1)/2m\nmid(q+1)/2, then α\alpha is not an mm-th power, so 2α2\alpha is not an mm-th power, and α\alpha is not adjacent to α-\alpha. Thus no such vv exists.

    If m(q+1)/2m\mid(q+1)/2, then α-\alpha is already included in the Proposition 4.6 clique, so again no new vertex can be added. Hence the Proposition 4.6 clique is maximal.

    Finally, when m(q+1)/2m\mid(q+1)/2, α\alpha itself is an mm-th power, so multiplication by α1\alpha^{-1} is an automorphism of GP(q2,m)\mathrm{GP}(q^2,m). It sends the Proposition 4.6 clique N(α){α,α}N(\alpha)\cup\{\alpha,-\alpha\} to the Proposition 4.7 clique αFq\alpha\mathbb F_q-construction with vertices {±1}(αFqN(1))\{\pm1\}\cup(\alpha\mathbb F_q\cap N(1)). Therefore the Proposition 4.7 clique is maximal as well.

    Citation: Uses the definitions and Proposition 5.1 from Goryainov, Shalaginov, and Yip, “On eigenfunctions and maximal cliques of generalised Paley graphs of square order,” Finite Fields Appl. 87 (2023), Paper No. 102150. The maximality argument above resolves Conjecture 4.9.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2

      PASS

      The proof attacks the correct Conjecture 4.9 and is mathematically complete. The key Möbius-transform stabilizer lemma is valid, and Proposition 5.1 is used appropriately to reduce any extra vertex to such an affine stabilizer; the only possible nonidentity stabilizer gives α-\alpha, which is either nonadjacent to α\alpha or already included. The Proposition 4.7 case follows by the stated automorphism.

      A literature check found related partial results, notably Martin–Yip (2025) for sufficiently large qq relative to mm, but not a full resolution of this exact conjecture.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE2

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new and resolves a specific published conjecture about maximal cliques in generalized Paley graphs. It is narrow and the proof is short, relying heavily on Goryainov–Shalaginov–Yip’s Proposition 5.1 plus a stabilizer computation, so it is not top-journal level. But removing the largeness/gcd restrictions from prior partial results and settling the conjecture should plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard finite-fields/algebraic-combinatorics journal.

      Literature check: I found no prior full resolution. The closest known result is Martin–Yip (2025), which proves the same maximality only when qq is sufficiently large relative to the Paley exponent. The 2026 Brouwer–Goryainov–Shalaginov–Yip paper gives a general Desarguesian-net framework and covers Paley/Peisert and some generic cases, but does not contain this exact all-qq generalized Paley stabilizer/maximality result. Other related Yip/Asgarli/Sziklai works concern maximum cliques/subfields, not these smaller maximal cliques.

      Citation: Original conjecture: Goryainov, Shalaginov, Yip, Finite Fields Appl. 87 (2023), Paper 102150.
      Partial result: Martin and Yip, “Distribution of power residues over shifted subfields and maximal cliques in generalized Paley graphs,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 153 (2025), 109–124.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.